"Success" in the video gaming industry is never really defined nor universally agreed upon. In an industry where a typical software purchase is $60, the stakes are high, for both consumers and producers. Thus, a game's success is always debated.
There are two important categories of "success." A game can achieve critical success without commercial success, and vice versa. A critical success is positive reception from the consumers and press, such as good reviews and awards. A commercial success is high amount of sales. Tim Schafer, a high profile in the industry, is known for games with great critical success. Mr. Schafer's games are often regarded as esoteric titles that fades from mainstream almost immediately upon release, despite their high quality. His games, such as Grim Fandango and Psychonauts, are considered as much of a classic as Zelda or Mario. However, the unconventional nature and style of Mr. Schafer's games tend to deny itself of sales and popular consumption.
On the other hand, low quality games with commercial success are saturating the industry. Of course, the quality of a game is purely subjective. But let's remove the ethical arguments here. The video game industry is plagued with profit-oriented developers, who produce quick cash-crop through shovelware. This is particularly prevalent on the Nintendo Wii because of its casual nature. Casual gamers are not well-informed, and therefore are more susceptible to shovelware. Evidence of this is not hard to find (just look up vgchartz.com). For example, in the week of March 19th, 2011, Pokémon Black/White version tops the chart with a weekly sale of almost a million; Wii Sports takes the fourth spot with 143k. Now, here's the sad part: both of the aforementioned title triumph over Shogun 2: Total War (which garners only 118k of sales), who occupies the 7th spot, in commercial success.
On a personal level, it saddens me to see the industry valuing commercial over critical success. The result is a focus on marketability at the expense of quality, accessibility at the expense of depth, and polygons count at the expense of gameplay. By no means am I an elitist, and these are vast generalizations. But the video game industry is embracing a trend where publishers are pressuring developers to emphasize on commercial success. The result is a decline of many prestigious franchise, all in the name of sales.
Critical and commercial success are defined by the general public, the collective. These are shorthand and obvious ways to determine and video game's success because they are defined by the community of gamers, implying a kind of consensus.
But let me take a moment and narrow it down to the individual level - how one person would define the success of a game. It's true that there are many that define their purchase around the established critical or commercial success of a game - watching reviews and monitoring sales. But then there are some gamers that define their purchase by their perceived quality of a game. They judge the two core aspects of the game: gameplay and story. For a person to purchase a game, a game only needs to exceedingly thrives on one aspect. Indeed, many does define the success of a game by one of the two.
This is a method of defining success that I would also call the fan-service type of success. Success, however narrowly defined, should be appreciated. Thus, many developers, most in their own niche genres, develop games purely for their established fanbase. Personally, this is the type of success that I respect. The level of enthusiasm on behalf of both the developer and consumer for narrowly successful games are astounding. Examples for this would be the esoteric JRPGs that Atlus produces, or long-standing but niche franchise like Disgaea, Dynasty Warriors, Mount & Blade. All of these achieve neither the level of critical or commercial success that can rival that of big budget productions. However, since their inception, they, as a franchise, has cultivated a loyal fanbase that happily purchase their games consistently. PS. I feel like this question of defining a video game's success could never be answered. Other than the things I suggest, there are also developer recognition, franchise recognition, hype, marketing, and so on...
Overview
"Success" in the video gaming industry is never really defined nor universally agreed upon. In an industry where a typical software purchase is $60, the stakes are high, for both consumers and producers. Thus, a game's success is always debated.
There are two important categories of "success." A game can achieve critical success without commercial success, and vice versa. A critical success is positive reception from the consumers and press, such as good reviews and awards. A commercial success is high amount of sales. Tim Schafer, a high profile in the industry, is known for games with great critical success. Mr. Schafer's games are often regarded as esoteric titles that fades from mainstream almost immediately upon release, despite their high quality. His games, such as Grim Fandango and Psychonauts, are considered as much of a classic as Zelda or Mario. However, the unconventional nature and style of Mr. Schafer's games tend to deny itself of sales and popular consumption.
On the other hand, low quality games with commercial success are saturating the industry. Of course, the quality of a game is purely subjective. But let's remove the ethical arguments here. The video game industry is plagued with profit-oriented developers, who produce quick cash-crop through shovelware. This is particularly prevalent on the Nintendo Wii because of its casual nature. Casual gamers are not well-informed, and therefore are more susceptible to shovelware. Evidence of this is not hard to find (just look up vgchartz.com). For example, in the week of March 19th, 2011, Pokémon Black/White version tops the chart with a weekly sale of almost a million; Wii Sports takes the fourth spot with 143k. Now, here's the sad part: both of the aforementioned title triumph over Shogun 2: Total War (which garners only 118k of sales), who occupies the 7th spot, in commercial success.
On a personal level, it saddens me to see the industry valuing commercial over critical success. The result is a focus on marketability at the expense of quality, accessibility at the expense of depth, and polygons count at the expense of gameplay. By no means am I an elitist, and these are vast generalizations. But the video game industry is embracing a trend where publishers are pressuring developers to emphasize on commercial success. The result is a decline of many prestigious franchise, all in the name of sales.
Sauce: http://www.vgchartz.com/
History
(There is no text here yet.)
Opinion
Critical and commercial success are defined by the general public, the collective. These are shorthand and obvious ways to determine and video game's success because they are defined by the community of gamers, implying a kind of consensus.
But let me take a moment and narrow it down to the individual level - how one person would define the success of a game. It's true that there are many that define their purchase around the established critical or commercial success of a game - watching reviews and monitoring sales. But then there are some gamers that define their purchase by their perceived quality of a game. They judge the two core aspects of the game: gameplay and story. For a person to purchase a game, a game only needs to exceedingly thrives on one aspect. Indeed, many does define the success of a game by one of the two.
This is a method of defining success that I would also call the fan-service type of success. Success, however narrowly defined, should be appreciated. Thus, many developers, most in their own niche genres, develop games purely for their established fanbase. Personally, this is the type of success that I respect. The level of enthusiasm on behalf of both the developer and consumer for narrowly successful games are astounding. Examples for this would be the esoteric JRPGs that Atlus produces, or long-standing but niche franchise like Disgaea, Dynasty Warriors, Mount & Blade. All of these achieve neither the level of critical or commercial success that can rival that of big budget productions. However, since their inception, they, as a franchise, has cultivated a loyal fanbase that happily purchase their games consistently.
PS. I feel like this question of defining a video game's success could never be answered. Other than the things I suggest, there are also developer recognition, franchise recognition, hype, marketing, and so on...
Future Trends?
(There is no text here yet.)